Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This revision petition under Section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 is preferred by the petitioner/tenant against the judgment dated 10.9.2007 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla in RBT No. 69-S/14 of 2005/2002 whereby he set-aside the order dated 29.11.2001 passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No.4, Shimla in Case No. 80/2 of 1999/1998 and ordered the eviction of the tenant.

2. The parties shall be referred to as the landlord and the tenant. The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant on number of grounds, however, for the purpose of determination of this revision petition the only ground which survives for consideration is as to whether the premises in question are bonafidely required by the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated by the tenant.

3. It is not in dispute that the building No. 20, the Mall, Shimla is owned by the landlord and the tenant is in occupation of one shop on the level of the Mall Road and the entire basement below it consisting of a room and a toilet under the stairs. The tenant was already in possession of the disputed premises when the same was purchased by the landlord from its previous owner Sh. Mehar Chand S/o Lala Mauza Mal. The eviction of the tenant was sought on the following grounds:-

(i) Arrears of rent alongwith interest ;

(ii) Liability to pay future rent ;

(iii) The tenant after commencement of the HimachalPradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) had without the prior written consent of the landlord carried out material additions and alterations in the basement floor of the building thereby impair the value and utility and thus liable to be evicted; and

(iv) That the premises in question are bonafidely required by the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding which building or rebuilding cannot be carried out without the tenanted premises being vacated by the tenant/petitioner.

4. It is not in dispute that insofar as the grounds No. (i) to (iii) are concerned, the same have been rendered redundant because the arrears of the rent already stand paid in accordance with law and insofar as the eviction of the tenant on the ground of his having committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building is concerned, the same was not pressed before the learned Appellate Authority as would be clear from para 12 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority.

5. In support of ground No.(iv), the landlord pleaded that the premises in dispute under the tenancy and occupation of the tenant were bonafidely required by him for the purpose of building or rebuilding which building or rebuilding could not be carried out without the tenanted premises being vacated by the tenant. The building was more than 100 years age and had now out-lived its span of life. The upper two floors of the building were in the physical possession and in occupation of the landlord and his wife where the landlord and his wife were jointly running a hotel and the landlord was also having his office on a part of the said premises under his occupation. It was specifically pleaded that the landlord wanted to reconstruct/rebuild the entire building by pulling down the existing old structure which was made of dhajji, bricks and chuna surkhi and would be replaced by RCC structure which would be put to personal use by opening restaurant and hotel therein. It was further pleaded that the structure of the building had been badly damaged on account of fire which had occurred in the adjoining building No. 19, The Mall, Shimla. Lastly, it was submitted that the landlord was possessed of sufficient means to reconstruct the building and for such reconstruction, the landlord was also taking steps for approval of the plans on old lines as the RCC structure is to be built in place of the present old